FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| UDDIN v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION | [2005] FMCA 841 |
| MIGRATION – Visa – student visa. |
| Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s.39B Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.137J Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 (Cth), s.20 |
| Applicant: | MOHAMMAD AHSAN UDDIN |
| Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
| File Number: | SYG 1313 of 2004 |
| Judgment of: | Scarlett FM |
| Hearing date: | 3 June 2005 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 3 June 2005 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 7 June 2005 |
REPRESENTATION
| Solicitor for the Applicant: | Mr McNally |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Parish Patience Immigration Lawyers |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr Kennett |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Australian Government Solicitor |
ORDERS
DECLARATIONS
That the Applicant’s student visa was not cancelled by operation of law under section 137J of the Migration Act 1958.
That the Applicant was not an unlawful non-citizen at any stage.
ORDERS
That a writ of prohibition is to issue restraining the Respondent and her servants or agents from acting upon or giving effect to the purported automatic cancellation of the Applicant’s visa on 6 March 2005.
That a writ of certiorari is to issue removing the purported decision of the delegate of the Respondent on 6 April 2005 rejecting the Applicant’s application for a visa into this Court to be quashed.
That a writ of prohibition is to issue restraining the Respondent and her servants or agents from acting upon or giving effect to the decision of
6 April 2005 rejecting the Applicant’s application for a visa.
That a writ of mandamus is to issue directing that Respondent to reconsider and redetermine the Applicant’s application for a subclass 497 visa according to law.
That the Respondent is to pay the Applicant’s costs of this application, fixed in the sum of $7500.00 professional costs and $1,076.00 disbursements, a total of $8,576.00.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 1313 of 2005
| MOHAMMAD AHSAN UDDIN |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Revised from transcript)
This is an application for review of an automatic cancellation of the applicant's student visa on 6 March 2005 by the operation of s.137J of the Migration Act1958 and the subsequent decision of a delegate of the respondent Minister to reject the applicant's application for a subclass 497 visa.
The applicant claims that his student visa was not lawfully cancelled by the operation of s.137J and therefore his application for a subclass 497 visa was validly made.
The applicant seeks the following declarations and orders:
1)a declaration that his student visa was not cancelled by operation of law under s.137J (2) of the Act;
2)a declaration that he was not an unlawful non-citizen at any stage as a result of the purported automatic cancellation;
3)the issue of a writ of prohibition restraining the respondent Minister and her servants or agents from acting upon or giving effect to the purported automatic cancellation of 6 March 2005;
4)a writ of certiorari removing the purported rejection decision…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Uddin v Minister for Immigration and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2005] FMCA 841
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with resolving several critical legal issues, including whether the Applicant's visa had been lawfully cancelled under section 137J of the Migration Act 1958, whether the Applicant had become an unlawful non-citizen, and whether the Minister's decisions in relation to the visa were made in accordance with the law. A further issue was the appropriate remedy for the Applicant, given the alleged unlawful actions by the Minister.
The court found that the Minister's decision to cancel the Applicant's visa was flawed due to procedural errors, including a failure to consider all relevant information and a lack of procedural fairness. The court held that the visa was not lawfully cancelled and that the Applicant had not been an unlawful non-citizen. Consequently, the court issued several writs, including prohibition, certiorari, and mandamus, to rectify the Minister's actions and to compel a reconsideration of the Applicant's visa application. The court also ordered the Minister to pay the Applicant's legal costs.
The Federal Court's final orders included declarations that the Applicant's visa was not lawfully cancelled, that the Applicant was not an unlawful non-citizen, and that the Minister was to refrain from acting on certain decisions. Additionally, the court ordered the issuance of various writs, including prohibition, certiorari, and mandamus, to ensure the Minister's compliance with the court's directions. The Minister was also ordered to pay the Applicant's legal costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
DECLARATIONS
1.
That the Applicant’s student visa was not cancelled by operation of law under section 137J of the Migration Act 1958.
2.
That the Applicant was not an unlawful non-citizen at any stage.
ORDERS
3.
That a writ of prohibition is to issue restraining the Respondent and her servants or agents from acting upon or giving effect to the purported automatic cancellation of the Applicant’s visa on 6 March 2005.
4.
That a writ of certiorari is to issue removing the purported decision of the delegate of the Respondent on 6 April 2005 rejecting the Applicant’s application for a visa into this Court to be quashed.
5.
That a writ of prohibition is to issue restraining the Respondent and her servants or agents from acting upon or giving effect to the decision of
6 April 2005 rejecting the Applicant’s application for a visa.
6.
That a writ of mandamus is to issue directing that Respondent to reconsider and redetermine the Applicant’s application for a subclass 497 visa according to law.
7.
That the Respondent is to pay the Applicant’s costs of this application, fixed in the sum of $7500.00 professional costs and $1,076.00 disbursements, a total of $8,576.00.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.